Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act provides for a defensive equity in favor of a transferee who has taken possession of property in part performance of a contract, and this equity can be invoked by both plaintiffs and defendants to protect their possession against the transferor or persons claiming under him.

Headnote:
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SECTION 53-A - PART PERFORMANCE - DEFENSIVE EQUITY - APPLICABILITY TO PLAINTIFFS - INTERPRETATION AND SCOPE - DISTINCTION BETWEEN TITLE AND POSSESSION - TRANSFEROR'S RIGHT TO ENFORCE RIGHTS AGAINST PROPERTY - TRANSFEROR'S RIGHT TO ENFORCE RIGHTS AGAINST MONEY IN COURT - SUBSTITUTION OF MONEY FOR PROPERTY - COMPENSATION FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY GOVERNMENT - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 53-A.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration that they were entitled to the surplus sale proceeds in court deposit in O.S. No. 124 of 1945 on the file of the same Court. The facts that gave rise to the appeal, may be briefly stated. 10 acres of zamindari jeroyiti land in Chinnayapalem village known as Peddagaruvu originally belonged to the father-in-law and the husband of the 2nd defendant, yenugu Achayya and Apparao. On 18-2-1939 they executed a sale deed ex. A-8 conveying the said land in favour of the plaintiffs and put them in possession thereof. It is not disputed that the consideration was also paid to the vendors. As the 2nd defendant s husband Apparao suddenly died, the document could not be registered within the time prescribed. After his death, though an attempt was made to get it compulsorily registered, for one reason or other, it could not be done. Subsequent to the sale the plaintiffs and the other members of their family, defendants 3 to 6, partitioned their family properties including the said land and, in the partition, the land was allotted to the plaintiffs share and they were enjoying the same. They leased it out to tenants and also paid the taxes due thereon. Meanwhile, the 1st defendant, who was interested in the holding of which the aforesaid land formed a part, paid the taxes due on the entire holding and filed O. S. No. 124 of 1945 on the file of the District Munsif s Court for contribution. To that suit 1st defendant and defendants 2 to 6 were made parties. The 1st defendant alleged therein that the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of Peddacheruvu in pursuance of the sale deed executed by the husband of the 2nd defendant. Though the decree was for a sum of Rs 321/- the land in the possession of the plaintiffs was sold and a sum of Rs. l,025/- was realised. The 1st defendant drew out a sum of Rs. 321/- from the sale proceeds and the balance of Rs. 704/- was in c m. The 2nd defendant filed an application under Rule 165- of the Civil Rules of Practice for drawing out the amount. The plaintiffs resisted that application on the ground that the sale proceeds related to tke property that was sold to them by the 2nd defendant s husband and her fathertin-law and that they were in possession thereof at the time when it was sold in court auction. The learned District Munsif directed the parties to a separate proceeding to establish their right to the land to enable them to claim the money in court deposit. The plaintiffs thereafter filed O. S. No. 266 of 1951 for a declaration that they were entitled to the surplus proceeds in court deposit. Both the courts, relying upon the provisions of Section 53-A of the transfer of Property Act decreed the plaintiff s suit. Hence, the appeal.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, which provides for a defensive equity in favor of a transferee who has taken possession of property in part performance of a contract, is not limited to defendants and can also be invoked by plaintiffs to protect their possession against the transferor or persons claiming under him. The court further held that the transferor's right to enforce rights against the property is barred under Section 53-A, and this bar extends to the transferor's right to enforce rights against money in court that represents the value of the property.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is available only to defendants or can also be invoked by plaintiffs? 2. Whether the transferor's right to enforce rights against the property is barred under Section 53-A? 3. Whether the transferor's right to enforce rights against money in court that represents the value of the property is barred under Section 53-A?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act does not expressly or by necessary implication indicate that the rights conferred thereunder can only be invoked as a defendant and not as a plaintiff. The section provides that the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract. This bar does not depend upon the array of the parties. The transferee can resist any attempt on the part of the transferor to enforce his rights in respect of the property whatever position he may occupy in the field of litigation. 2. The transferor's right to enforce rights against the property is barred under Section 53-A. The section states that the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession. This bar applies to all rights that the transferor may have against the property, including the right to possession, the right to sell the property, and the right to recover rent or other payments from the transferee. 3. The transferor's right to enforce rights against money in court that represents the value of the property is also barred under Section 53-A. The money in court is a substitute for the property, and the transferor's rights against the property are transferred to the money in court. Therefore, the transferor cannot enforce his rights against the money in court without enforcing his rights against the property, which is barred by Section 53-A.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decree of the lower courts, declaring that the plaintiffs were entitled to the surplus sale proceeds in court deposit.

( 1 ) THE Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon ble The Chief justice. Defendants 1 and 2 have preferred this appeal against the decree and judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kakinada confirming that of the District Munsif, Kakinada, in O. S. No. 266 of 1951 a suit filed by respondents 1 and 2 for a declaration that they were entitled to the surplus sale proceeds in court deposit in O. S. No. 124 of 1945 on the file of the same Court. The facts that gave rise to the appeal, may be briefly stated. 10 acres of zamindari jeroyiti land in Chinnayapalem village known as Peddagaruvu originally belonged to the father-in-law and the husband of the 2nd defendant, yenugu Achayya and Apparao. On 18-2-1939 they executed a sale deed ex. A-8 conveying the said land in favour of the plaintiffs and put them in possession thereof. It is not disputed that the consideration was also paid to the vendors. As the 2nd defendant s husband Apparao suddenly died, the document could not be registered within the time prescribed. After his death, though an attempt was made to get it compulsorily registered, for one reason or other, it could not be done. Subsequent to the sale the plaintiffs and the other members of their family, defendants 3 to 6, partitioned their family properties including the said land and, in the partition, the land was allotted to the plaintiffs share and they were enjoying the same. They leased it out to tenants and also paid the taxes due thereon. Meanwhile, the 1st defendant, who was interested in the holding of which the aforesaid land formed a part, paid the taxes due on the entire holding and filed O. S. No. 124 of 1945 on the file of the District Munsif s Court for contribution. To that suit 1st defendant and defendants 2 to 6 were made parties. The 1st defendant alleged therein that the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of Peddacheruvu in pursuance of the sale deed executed by the husband of the 2nd defendant. Though the decree was for a sum of Rs 321/- the land in the possession of the plaintiffs was sold and a sum of Rs. l,025/- was realised. The 1st defendant drew out a sum of Rs. 321/- from the sale proceeds and the balance of Rs. 704/- was in c m. The 2nd defendant filed an application under Rule 165- of the Civil Rules of Practice for drawing out the amount. The plaintiffs resisted that application on the ground that the sale proceeds related to tke property that was sold to them by the 2nd defendant s husband and her fathertin-law and that they were in possession thereof at the time when it was sold in court auction. The learned District Munsif directed the parties to a separate proceeding to establish their right to the land to enable them to claim the money in court deposit. The plaintiffs thereafter filed O. S. No. 266 of 1951 for a declaration that they were entitled to the surplus proceeds in court deposit. Both the courts, relying upon the provisions of Section 53-A of the transfer of Property Act decreed the plaintiff s suit. Hence, the appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that Section 53-A of the transfer of Property Act gave statutory recognition to a defensive equity and that the said provisions can, therefore, be relied upon by a transferee as a defendant but not as a plaintiff. As the arguments turn upon the provisions of section 53-A, it would be convenient to read the section. Section 53-A: Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of th
Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1956 Supreme(AP) 129

Andhra Pradesh High CourtJudges : K.SUBBA RAO, VISWANATHA SASTRYYENUGU ACHAYYA - AppellantVersusERANKI VINKATA SUBBA RAO - RespondentDecided On : 04-10-56

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.SUBBA RAO, VISWANATHA SASTRY
YENUGU ACHAYYA - Appellant
Versus
ERANKI VINKATA SUBBA RAO - Respondent
Decided On : 04-10-56